'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Stewart P Evans]

Brainwashed

I think that this latest post shows really why it is impossible to debate with this brainwashed man. And he can keep his suggestions to himself. I am following Chris's lead, which was probably all he was trying to achieve anyway.

[Jeff Leahy]

Please try, at least, to have the courtesy to spell my name correctly, that is polite. .

Stewart, if you go back through my previous posts you will notice that I have on the whole used the correct spelling of your name. I know this is very difficult for some of you to understand but Dyslexics cant actually spell anything. I am unfortunately at the mercy of a mechanical device called a spell check. While it helps in some area’s unfortunately in others it has a negative effect, one of which is that my particular spell check seems to believe you spell your name incorrectly. I think this might be an American thing as my computer was designed there.

However, the idea that I was being, or would be, in anyway impolite in miss spelling of your name deliberately is preposterous.

I will write a strong worded letter of rebuttal to Mr Bill Gates.

PROBABILITY: The state or condition of being probable. The likelihood of something happening a probable or most probable event, the probability is that they will come) Math the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured in the ratio of favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible. In all probability most probable, likelihood, likeliness, odds (good) chance (strong or distinct) most certainly (most or very) likely, in all likelihood, as likely as not, presumably.

Tyros with limited knowledge, such as yourself, .

yes, ‘I know I know nothing”.

That might be fine for the likes of you, so be it. But others like to know all the facts and then draw their own conclusions. .

Like in all probability the writing is Swansons?

Judging by Martin Fido's almost hysterical response when I first posted on the problems with the penciled writing inn the Anderson book (for which seek out the Casebook archives) you would have thought that I was committing some unforgivable sin. And I did not even suggest fakery, I merely pointed out the factual and valid problems with the writing. Something that he, apparently, missed back in 1988. .

Yes I remember a hysterical response but I don’t recall it being Martins.

I appreciate, perhaps more than you, that the A-Z is being updated and, I have no doubt, that it will prove to be a valuable and necessary tool. But that is not the point; thousands will continue to access the 1996 edition and will know nothing of the caveats that now exist. I look forward to seeing what the new edition says! And I do not hesitate to say that everyone with an interest in the case should buy a copy. .

What are you actually suggesting here..That Martin should re-call every edit of the 1996 A to Z and personally write the word ‘Probably” . Wouldn’t it just be easier, given time and Development in the world of Ripperology to update the book…oh yes I forgot that’s what they are doing..silly me.

'All this' is not 'a Red Herring', an important principle is involved here, or are you suggesting that we should all accept, as you appear to do, the word of Messrs Fido and Begg without question. .

Do you mind supporting that statement with fact. Pray please demonstrate where or when I have ever suggested such a thing?

I do not expect anyone to accept my word without question - and I do put myself up for being asked. (Although I have been wondering whether it is worth it when I have involved debates, like this, with someone who does not even know what he is talking about). .

Then why do you get so upset and through your toys out the pram when someone questions you? You’re the claimed authority here not I, I’m doing what I do, asking questions, which I try and do as politely as possible but actually I’m wondering why I should bite my lip any further as your attitude has been hostile and aggressive from the out.

So, as Chris has tried to point out, it cannot be blindly accepted as a fact, as it has been in the past, that it was confirmed that it was Donald Swanson's handwriting. That was a probability - not a fact. And, no (please get a grip) Begg and Fido have not been vindicated in the 'original judgment.’

Yes, I accept Chris is correct..it is a probability (see above for detail). All your really arguing is Semantics.

They failed to properly question the origins of the 'marginalia' and establish exact dates, such as the News of the World involvement, and all the attendant details. .

NO they didn’t. Knowing Paul as I do, I’m sure he did everything within his power to verify FACT with the means at his disposal. Paul is a man of honor and a Gentleman. The story he gives is calm collected and factual.

They, apparently, failed to properly look at the 'marginalia' and discover, at that time, the differences between the writing on page 138 and that on the rear endpaper (a fact that went totally unobserved and totally unremarked upon for years). .

Yes as I’ve said before mocking in hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Their attitude to me over this has left me rather worried. Whenever I speak up, it seems, it is viewed as a 'personal attack', which it is not, and, amazingly, the last time a close friend of theirs asked my why I hated Paul Begg so much! .

Then why don’t you get on the phone and say it to his face instead of bleating behind his back on casebook!

I do not hate Paul at all. In fact, to the contrary, I have always enjoyed his company and found him to be a most interesting and widely read person. In fact as a person I like him a lot. And the same goes for Martin, who can be great fun and is also very knowledgeable. But I simply cannot agree with them on this, and many other things touching upon their apparent obsession with Anderson and the Polish Jew theory. .

I fail to see why you take everything so personally. The whole debate would be pretty dull if there weren’t differing viewpoints.
You don’t agree with them..well reality check..Neither do i..We all have different views it doesn’t necessarily make anyone right or wrong.

For goodness sake you have only to look at Martin's summing up at the end of his Jack the Ripper book (1989 edition used) - "Of course, Anderson really meant 'David Cohen.' The man who was unhesitatingly, but secretly, identified by Smith's witness, Mr Joseph Lawende, who had seen him at Church Passage with Catherine Eddowes. And the times at which City Pcs Watkins and Harvey passed Mitre Square proved, without question, that he was the man who murdered her. Jack the Ripper has been found." .

Yes at last I agree with you.

I appreciate that Martin may now have stepped back slightly from that early pronouncement, but I have little doubt that in his own mind he has identified Jack the Ripper. And, fine, good on him, but please don't expect me to agree. I know that such a thing is simply not possible.

Ah we are back to the word Probability. Time for the probability over drive..so long and thanks for all the fish.

Pirate

[Ally]

I find it sad that anyone who questions facts and evidence is automatically accused of having a personal vendetta. The clique-like, incestuous nature of Ripperology is one of the main reasons that inaccuracies and falsehoods are allowed to flourish for years, sometimes decades because everyone is too damn chicken to question the big guns.

If there are factual details that point out discrepancies in what has been published, then those discrepancies should be pointed out, with accompanying evidence, so that everyone can make up their mind with ALL the facts presented to them.

In my opinion, yes, the differences in pencil and writing should have been clarified when the marginalia first was presented. Asking questions about it is the act of the logical and reasoned mind.

If a mistake was made, then it was made. Everyone makes them. If at the time the authors had a compelling reason to leave out the differences in pencil and discrepancies in writing, then it should be easy for the authors or those in the mix to present their case, present their facts and also let the reader make up their own mind.

It's about the facts. Period.

[Victor]

Stewart, your courtesy and dignity and above all patience in dealing with this issue is remarkable. I've read this thread with interest and I for one am massively grateful that you continue to post.

KR,
Vic.

[Stewart P Evans]

Courtesy

Again Stuart if the original photocopy was the only means used to authenticate the text you’d have a point but it wasn’t. It was simply one of a number of factors/considerations that was used to draw the conclusion the marginalia was genuine.
And that assessment has not been proved incorrect.
The caravan has moved on since 1996. I’m not certain what reference will appear in the new A to Z. One might assume some reference to the recent examination might be made. But I am not psychic.
However all this is a Red Herring, as in all ‘probability’ the text was written by Swanson. By all means question it and double-check it, if you have a notion. But the same basic conclusion, in all probability remains, thus vindicating Begg and Fido in the original judgement.
Pirate

Please try, at least, to have the courtesy to spell my name correctly, that is polite.

This argument has hinged on the use of the Home Office document examiner's statement to support the contention that the handwriting was definitely Swanson's. That was a flawed conclusion and should not have been presented in the way that it was. It's not a question of being 'proved incorrect.'

But this has all been explained to you before and you won't, or do not want to, see it. I am beginning to think , like Chris, that it is pointless trying to have a sensible discussion with you.

And it is not a question of caravans moving on either. The last printing of the A-Z, which thousands have used, and will use, as a reference, contains this misleading information which, as I have pointed out, resulted in many people treating it as gospel and 'beyond peradventure' as others have called it.

Tyros with limited knowledge, such as yourself, are taken in by all this and a course of unquestioning, blind acceptance is taken. That might be fine for the likes of you, so be it. But others like to know all the facts and then draw their own conclusions. And those conclusions might still agree with yours. But at the very least they should be in possession of all the information that is known.

Judging by Martin Fido's almost hysterical response when I first posted on the problems with the pencilled writing in the Anderson book (for which seek out the Casebook archives) you would have thought that I was committing some unforgivable sin. And I did not even suggest fakery, I merely pointed out the factual and valid problems with the writing. Something that he, apparently, missed back in 1988.

I appreciate, perhaps more than you, that the A-Z is being updated and, I have no doubt, that it will prove to be a valuable and necessary tool. But that is not the point, thousands will continue to access the 1996 edition and will know nothing of the caveats that now exist. I look forward to seeing what the new edition says! And I do not hesitate to say that everyone with an interest in the case should buy a copy.

'All this' is not 'a Red Herring', an important principle is involved here, or are you suggesting that we should all accept, as you appear to do, the word of Messrs Fido and Begg without question. I do not expect anyone to accept my word without question - and I do put myself up for being asked. (Although I have been wondering whether it is worth it when I have involved debates, like this, with someone who does not even know what he is talking about).

So, as Chris has tried to point out, it cannot be blindly accepted as a fact, as it has been in the past, that it was confirmed that it was Donald Swanson's handwriting. That was a probability - not a fact. And, no (please get a grip) Begg and Fido have not been vindicated in the 'original judgement.'

They failed to properly question the origins of the 'marginalia' and establish exact dates, such as the News of the World involvement, and all the attendant details.

They, apparently, failed to properly look at the 'marginalia' and discover, at that time, the differences between the writing on page 138 and that on the rear endpaper (a fact that went totally unobserved and totally unremarked upon for years).

Their attitude to me over this has left me rather worried. Whenever I speak up, it seems, it is viewed as a 'personal attack', which it is not, and, amazingly, the last time a close friend of theirs asked my why I hated Paul Begg so much!

I do not hate Paul at all. In fact, to the contrary, I have always enjoyed his company and found him to be a most interesting and widely read person. In fact as a person I like him a lot. And the same goes for Martin, who can be great fun and and is also very knowledgeable. But I simply cannot agree with them on this, and many other things touching upon their apparent obsession with Anderson and the Polish Jew theory. For goodness sake you have only to look at Martin's summing up at the end of his Jack the Ripper book (1989 edition used) - "Of course, Anderson really meant 'David Cohen.' The man who was unhesitatingly, but secretly, identified by Smith's witness, Mr Joseph Lawende, who had seen him at Church Passage with Catherine Eddowes. And the times at which City Pcs Watkins and Harvey passed Mitre Square proved, without question, that he was the man who murdered her. Jack the Ripper has been found."

I appreciate that Martin may now have stepped back slightly from that early pronouncement, but I have little doubt that in his own mind he has identified Jack the Ripper. And, fine, good on him, but please don't expect me to agree. I know that such a thing is simply not possible.

[Jeff Leahy]

How amazing, your response has suddenly become remarkably improved as regards spelling and standard of content. I wonder why?

Yes, you are being dumb, since you ask. And please get your facts right. No, you don't have 'two sheets of paper with writing on', that is a misleading statement. You have two sheets of paper that have photocopies on - there is a significant difference. A photocopied sheet is not an original sample of handwriting, obviously.

For a start I am pretty certain that no expert knowing that his pronouncement is going to have possibly great relevance, and would be published and used, would agree to committing himself on the sight of photocopies alone.

Any pronouncement on them that he does make is, of course, is a matter of opinion, for although, we are told, Paul Begg's expert declared the writing to be definitely Swanson's, an expert who has now seen the actual writing in the book is not so certain, stating "...so the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors."

That is a very different conclusion to that presented in the A-Z, 1996 edition, which the authors use to dismiss, out of hand, the suggestion made by Paul Harrison in his book. Indeed, because of the clean bill of health given to the 'marginalia' by Messrs Fido and Begg way back in the halcyon years of the late eighties and nineties, it has never been questioned, never been challenged, assumed to be flawless, &c. and it does not sit well with them that any queries are being raised now.

It is interesting to note that you are now saying "And if we know one sheet was written by Swanson, in all probability so was the other." Well that should be obvious, but there's no mention of probability in the A-Z response to Harrison. They unceremoniously shoot him down in flames stating that it is confirmed to be Swanson's hand.

How can that be right when caveats exist? If you can't see this I suggest that you stop debating.

Again Stuart if the original photocopy was the only means used to authenticate the text you’d have a point but it wasn’t. It was simply one of a number of factors/considerations that was used to draw the conclusion the marginalia was genuine.

And that assessment has not been proved incorrect.

The caravan has moved on since 1996. I’m not certain what reference will appear in the new A to Z. One might assume some reference to the recent examination might be made. But I am not psychic.

However all this is a Red Herring, as in all ‘probability’ the text was written by Swanson. By all means question it and double-check it, if you have a notion. But the same basic conclusion, in all probability remains, thus vindicating Begg and Fido in the original judgement.

Pirate

[Chris]

Ok Chris from now on I will try and caveat with the word ‘probably’.

However given that the universe is probably only 13.7 billion years old, and no one has a clue what laws of physics applied before that time, I think that we must except that almost anything is possible.

It's obviously pointless trying to have a sensible discussion with you. I won't waste any more time trying.

[Stewart P Evans]

Silly

Ok Chris from now on I will try and caveat with the word ‘probably’.
However given that the universe is probably only 13.7 billion years old, and no one has a clue what laws of physics applied before that time, I think that we must except that almost anything is possible. Thus rendering any claim to reality to be improbable. It is an argument that would surely lead to the requirement of any statement of fact being proceeded with a ‘Probably’ caveat.
I think for simplicity sake some people may consider odds so small that they simply drop the ‘probability’ pre-fix.
However personally I’m with Douglas Adams on this and will try and stay in the world of infinite possibility in future discussion.
Pirate

Now you are being really silly. And, as always, missing the point.

And I know certain parties, with better knowledge than you, who do feel that the endpaper annotation is suspect, and that is a possibility, not a remote one either. I tend towards the idea that it probably was written by Swanson, but at a later date. Either way it's not the clear cut, beyond question, source that they would have had us believe before.

[Jeff Leahy]

For crying out loud, Jeff, my point was that you made two different statements - "they were written by one person"
and "in all probability so was the other [written by Swanson]" - in consecutive sentences, as though they were equivalent, when the whole argument is about the distinction between the two!

Ok Chris from now on I will try and caveat with the word ‘probably’.

However given that the universe is probably only 13.7 billion years old, and no one has a clue what laws of physics applied before that time, I think that we must except that almost anything is possible. Thus rendering any claim to reality to be improbable. It is an argument that would surely lead to the requirement of any statement of fact being proceeded with a ‘Probably’ caveat.

I think for simplicity sake some people may consider odds so small that they simply drop the ‘probability’ pre-fix.

However personally I’m with Douglas Adams on this and will try and stay in the world of infinite possibility in future discussion.

Pirate

[Chris]

Chris my reply clearly states...in all probability.

For crying out loud, Jeff, my point was that you made two different statements - "they were written by one person"
and "in all probability so was the other [written by Swanson]" - in consecutive sentences, as though they were equivalent, when the whole argument is about the distinction between the two!

[Stewart P Evans]

Dumb

I don’t know if I’m just being dumb here, but if you have two sheets of paper with writing on, and an expert says they are in the same hand. Does this not imply that they were written by one person? And if we know one sheet was written by Swanson, in all probability so was the other.
All the best
Pirate

How amazing, your response has suddenly become remarkably improved as regards spelling and standard of content. I wonder why?

Yes, you are being dumb, since you ask. And please get your facts right. No, you don't have 'two sheets of paper with writing on', that is a misleading statement. You have two sheets of paper that have photocopies on - there is a significant difference. A photocopied sheet is not an original sample of handwriting, obviously.

For a start I am pretty certain that no expert knowing that his pronouncement is going to have possibly great relevance, and would be published and used, would agree to committing himself on the sight of photocopies alone.

Any pronouncement on them that he does make is, of course, is a matter of opinion, for although, we are told, Paul Begg's expert declared the writing to be definitely Swanson's, an expert who has now seen the actual writing in the book is not so certain, stating "...so the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors."

That is a very different conclusion to that presented in the A-Z, 1996 edition, which the authors use to dismiss, out of hand, the suggestion made by Paul Harrison in his book. Indeed, because of the clean bill of health given to the 'marginalia' by Messrs Fido and Begg way back in the halcyon years of the late eighties and nineties, it has never been questioned, never been challenged, assumed to be flawless, &c. and it does not sit well with them that any queries are being raised now.

It is interesting to note that you are now saying "And if we know one sheet was written by Swanson, in all probability so was the other." Well that should be obvious, but there's no mention of probability in the A-Z response to Harrison. They unceremoniously shoot him down in flames stating that it is confirmed to be Swanson's hand.

How can that be right when caveats exist? If you can't see this I suggest that you stop debating.

[Jeff Leahy]

Chris my reply clearly states...in all probability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjMqo...eature=related 'Probability'

Of course there is a probability that when Paul posted the photocopy that somewhere on its journey it might have turned into a Sperm Whale.

I'm simply trying to suggest that this is, in all probability, unlikely.

Yours pirate

[Chris]

I don’t know if I’m just being dumb here, but if you have two sheets of paper with writing on, and an expert says they are in the same hand. Does this not imply that they were written by one person? And if we know one sheet was written by Swanson, in all probability so was the other.

There is a difference between being able to say "they are in the same hand" and being able to say "in all probability they are in the same hand". That is what this whole discussion hinges on.

It really is frustrating to see you producing post after post after post muddling these two possibilities up as though they are the same thing, when the distinction between them is what the whole argument turns on.

[Jeff Leahy]

No, the writing could not have been 'verified as Swanson's handwriting'. What he could do, though, is say that in his opinion the writing was in the same hand. Handwriting experts give expert opinion. .

I don’t know if I’m just being dumb here, but if you have two sheets of paper with writing on, and an expert says they are in the same hand. Does this not imply that they were written by one person? And if we know one sheet was written by Swanson, in all probability so was the other.

What Dr Davis has stated is totally different to what the early expert said. For in the early examination (of photocopies) it appears that the writing was declared to be unquestionably Swanson's, whereas Dr Davis's statements are less certain, contain caveats and also identify crucial differences between the two sets of handwriting in the book. None of this, apparently, emerged in the early examination. Hence the A-Z was able to pronounce on the undoubted, unqualified, acceptance of the 'marginalia', which suited its authors very well. .

Yes it is different, but it does not contradict. The original was made, as you have pointed out, from a photocopy analysis. This might seem surprising, with hine-site, however the authentication process was not just handwriting but a mixture of provenance, contextual, and expert analysis of the Text.

I will re-post Dr Davies words kindly supplied by Chris.

“What was interesting about analyzing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later. There are enough similarities between the writing in the book and that found in the ledger to suggest that it probably was Swanson’s writing, although in the second, later set, there are small differences. These could be attributed to the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration, but we cannot be completely certain that is the explanation. The added complication is that people in the Victorian era tended to have very similar writing anyway as they were all taught the same copybook, so the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors.
It is most likely to be Swanson, but I’m sure the report will be cause for lively debate amongst those interested in the case.”

What this sounds like to me is an expert covering his backside, not an expert hinting at any wrongdoing or forgery.

Now, I again repeat, I am not alleging fakery here, indeed I am quite happy for everyone to read all that is available on this and to draw their own conclusions. But I do not agree with the blind, unqualified, acceptance advocated in the A-Z. Especially as now, as we have seen, all is not quite as straightforward as it first appeared. .

http://vimeo.com/3477106 Yes I know this Stewart, you made this clear at conference. However I simply do not know the wording or reference in the new A to Z. You have me at a disadvantage. Last I spoke to Paul last minute changes were still being made.

There is absolutely no way that 'the original assessment made by Paul Begg and Martin Fido' has been vindicated. .

This is a matter of opinion. They certainly haven’t been proved wrong, in that the handwriting is most likely to be Swanson’s.

If it had there would be no debate here and all would be cozy in the garden, as it was prior to a proper examination of these notes being made. Get it into your head - this isn't about forgery, it's about proper and objective examination and assessment. Just because certain people get very upset about any queries being raised on the 'sacrosanct marginalia' doesn't mean that we shouldn't all be free to discuss it as we wish. Although I do hope that such discussion remains sensible and relevant.

If your requesting that further examination should take place, I have already stated that should the opportunity arise I would be more than happy for this to happen, even be involved. However my opinion is that it would be unlikely to offer up anything other than the current conclusion that it was in all probability and most likely to have been written by Swanson.

The examiner even gives a nod and a wink at the end by stating: , but I’m sure the report will be cause for lively debate amongst those interested in the case.”

He clearly had a sense of humour and was proved correct.

All the best

Pirate

[Chris]

What Dr Davis has stated is totally different to what the early expert said. For in the early examination (of photocopies) it appears that the writing was declared to be unquestionably Swanson's, whereas Dr Davis's statements are less certain, contain caveats and also identify crucial differences between the two sets of handwriting in the book. None of this, apparently, emerged in the early examination.

As a matter of interest, is it known whether the original document examiner saw copies of both sets of annotations, or only a copy of the ones on the endpaper? If the latter, it would obviously explain why he didn't comment on the differences between the annotations on the two pages (if he didn't). Quite possibly that information has already been posted and I've missed it.